Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T07CM01618
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/20/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Please install No Parking - Fire Lane signs at both ends of Hammerhead T turn around. Show location of nearest fire hydrant and include dimensions to furthest part of structures. Per C.O.T. amendements to the 2003 IFC (Section 508), an additional hydrant and/or fire sprinklers may be required. |
| 04/30/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: T07CM01618 1446 E. Blacklidge Drive, new apartments - 11 units Commercial Site Plan, 1st review TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 1, 2007 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. This project was reviewed for compliance with the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standards (DS), American National Standard Institute (ANSI) and International Building Code (IBC 2003). 2. Per DS 2-02.2.1.6, please clarify if the buildings will have roof overhangs, and if so, how much and the vertical clearance? Clarify how building height is measured - from grade to top of flat roof and noting a parapet wall OR from grade to top of walls, top of ridge and at midpoint of ridge? clarify where building entries are - include garage doors. 3. Per DS 2-02.2.1.7, with regards to building setbacks: The plan shows a building setback from Blacklidge for a developing area, and shows it measured from the travel lane. In actuality, this is an established neighborhood and is not on a major streets and routes, thus Sec. 3.2.6.5.A for established neighborhoods is to be used. The building setback should be "the greater of 20' or 1.5 times the height of the exterior building wall". Please revise the plan accordingly. I acknowledge the building setbacks at the south, east and west lot lines appear to meet code. 4. Per DS 2-02.2.1.8, with regards to parking A) add handicapped sign to details page please, with $518.00 fine specified B) show all garage entries (assumed that is where the parking is), their widths and number of cars supported C) revise number of parking spaces provided at south end as being 3, rather than 4 D) remove references to "guest" parking spaces please, this is all required parking. 5. Per DS 2-02.2.1.9, with regards to bicycle parking: A) add signage to the front of the complex directing where bike parking is on the site B) clarify where lighting for bicycle parking at night (on building?) C) add notation clarifying that DG is provided where concrete is not in the bike pkg area 6. Per DS 2-02.2.1.11, please list the width of the PAALs near trash. Remove reference to Urbano Drive from the PAAL. 7. Per DS 2-02.2.2.1.12, with regards to vehicle/pedestrian/handicapped access: A) it appears there are garage entries on the site, clarify with lines/etc. where the driveways are over the sidewalk. A physical separation must be provided between a PAAL and a sidewalk at all places other than garage entry - provide vertical curb (per DS 2-08 and 3-05). B) Provide truncated domes at the top of the handicapped access aisle - on the concrete walk - to warn pedestrians of the change to vehicular use area. 8. Per DS 2-02.2.1.13, please clarify if any signage is to be provided, with their specs. 9. Per DS 2-02.2.1.20, please ensure all easements are on plan, with type and recordation. 10. Per DS 2-02.2.1.25, please show any intended free-standing lighting with vertical clearance. 11. Per DS 2-02.2.1.32, please see engineering comments for location requirements of the dumpster enclosure. 12. Please remove the "subdivision" reference in note 16. 13. Please add the note that "this development is subject to section 3.5.7.1.F of the Land Use Code. (manufactured housing ground set requirements, not really applicable here, but the note is a general note to be added to the plan.) 14. Please note that depending upon the responses provided, further review comments may be forthcoming. Should you have any questions on this review, please contact me via email at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 837-4951. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call (520) 791-5608. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T07CM01618 1446 e blacklidge.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 05/02/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Please see zoning review comments. |
| 05/02/2007 | HTHRALL1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 05/07/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 7, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07CM01618 PROJECT NAME: Casas Urbano PROJECT ADDRESS: 1446 East Blacklidge Drive PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate The following items must be revised or added to the site plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN, DRAINAGE REPORT 1. Clarify in the response letter if the intent of this project is to subdivide in the future. If the project is going to go through the platting process provide the subdivision case number in the lower right corner of (at minimum) the first sheet. 2. Remove all references to platting. This submittal is for a site plan review only and should stand only as a site plan. 3. It is not clear why a private 10' drainage easement is proposed. A drainage easement would be required if the drainage is flowing through separate lots, such as a townhome. Because this is a site plan review it is only necessary to show the drainage area. Revise appropriately. 4. Remove the reference to Urbano Drive. Naming the PAAL creates the perception the PAAL is a street. DS 2-02.2.2.1.A.11. 5. The table for the post-developed discharge shows the Q100 at 12.9 cfs, however on the plan view it shows the Q 100 at 16.2 cfs. Which is correct? Revise appropriately or clarify. 6. Provide the existing floodplain delineation on the site plan. Include the line weight in the legend. DS 2-02.2.1.A.15. 7. Provide the proposed floodplain delineation line weight in the legend. DS 2-02.2.1.A.15. 8. Indicate the datum used for the water surface elevation (WSE). Provide this information on the plan in an appropriate area. DS 2-02.2.1.A.15. 9. The WSE that is used to determine the finish floor elevation (FFE) discussed in the drainage report on page 3 is 2379.2'. The drainage report states this WSE is at the entrance of the project. The shown WSE on the site plan is 2378.9'. This office acknowledges the proposed FFEs is one foot above the WSE that is from the drainage report. However the document should match for consistency. Revise appropriately and/or clarify in the response letter. 10. The drainage report states on page one in the "Existing Offsite Drainage," discussion, the offsite watershed that directly impacts the property from the south amounts to 9.3 cfs, which is also depicted on the Existing Conditions Drainage Map. The site plan shows the offsite flow in the amount of 12.3 cfs. It is acknowledged this is not a large difference, however both document must match. Revise the document(s) appropriately. 11. This project is required to have a grading plan review, approval and permit. In effort to provide a timely review process for all plans is recommended to submit a grading permit application card (the green card) and grading plan with the second submittal. DS 11-01 12. All easements of record must be graphically shown on the plan with recordation data. On sheet 2, there appears to be a utility box located at the east side of the entrance/exit drive. Is this existing? Is there an easement? Or is it a new easement? Clarify and revise appropriately. 13. Dimension the 10' of clear space between the bollards on the detail for the solid waste enclosure (detail 11/4). DS 6-01. 14. Revise detail 8/4 to change "B/L" to "P/L". 15. Revise detail 8/4 and 9/4 to remove all references to common areas. 16. Revise keynote 7 to read, "general note 18." 17. Clearly indicate on the plan detectable warnings (truncated domes) are provided at all transitions between the access ramps (concrete) and vehicle use areas (asphalt). All accessible curb ramps shall have truncated domes installed that shall be twenty-four (24) inches minimum in the direction of travel and extend the full width of the curb ramp or flush surface. The domes shall be located so the edge nearest the curb line is six (6) inches to eight (8) inches from the curb line. ANSI 406.12, ANSI 705 18. Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. The drainage report states on page one in the "Existing Offsite Drainage," discussion, the offsite watershed that directly impacts the property from the south amounts to 9.3 cfs, which is also depicted on the Existing Conditions Drainage Map. The site plan shows the offsite flow in the amount of 12.3 cfs. It is acknowledged this is not a large difference, however both document must match. Revise the document(s) appropriately. 2. The WSE that is used to determine the finish floor elevation (FFE) discussed in the drainage report on page 3 is 2379.2'. The drainage report states this WSE is at the entrance of the project. The shown WSE on the site plan is 2378.9'. This office acknowledges the proposed FFEs is one foot above the WSE that is from the drainage report. However the document should match for consistency. Revise appropriately and/or clarify in the response letter. 3. Indicate the datum used for all discussed elevations. |
| 05/11/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/11/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A 10' interior landscape border is required along site boundaries of the adjacent residential properties to the west per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. 2. One (1) canopy tree must be provided for every thirty-three (33) linear feet of the interior landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4. 3. A 25 foot minimum height clearance, free of any overhead obstructions (wires, branches, etc.), shall be provided above the refuse collection site per DS 6-01.2.2.B.3. Relocate tree within collection area as necessary. 4. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. 5. Additional comments may apply. |
| 05/15/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | The presence of manholes along with a total flow for the private sewage collection system in excess of 3000 gallons per day will require review of the sewer design by the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality. Indicate that the design has been submitted to PDEQ at 150 W Congress St, 1st Floor (740-3340). A separate plumbing permit from Development Services will also be required for construction of the private sewer collection system. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/17/2007 | BETH GRANT | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/17/2007 | BETH GRANT | REJECT SHELF | Completed |